Pres Plumb

I can't blame them at all. I entirely agree with your assessment of the quandry. You have a better feel for their state of mind - I have followed the process through the paper and you have done a better job by attending several meetings - but it seems to me that much of the divergent, almost partisan, positioning has blurred and the reality of the impact of the decision has set in. I respect them immensely for their willingness to take this on.

I am not in the camp of those who would have this go to a public vote and I hope they don't opt for the political cover. As I see it, we have people who have literally spent years on this process and are clearly in the best position to make the decision. My concern is whether the documents, if approved, are up to snuff. I'm sure counsel on both sides are feeling a little weight on their shoulders right about now as well.

The west end will be developed. In my view, this has been an opportunity to plan that development and provide infrastructure financing as opposed to piecemeal decisions by many councils over decades. I think I understand and appreciate the feelings and opinions on both sides of the issue. Personally, I would vote to approve based on what I know but I would understand a decision to go to a public vote or to buy time for final personal deliberation.

I have to disagree with you on this one. If memory serves, the prospectus for this development indicated that the exit strategy for the investors was to sell the approved, annexed property. Hence, the people you are dealing with today are not the same as those who will eventually develop the property and Danny Mulcahy's status as a resident is not relevant.

If the agreement contained a provision to unwind the annexation in the event of a sale, we would be more aligned in our views on this but such is not the case and cannot realistically be expected. Nor will the City have a right to approve a buyer(s) in course as a part of the agreement. For there to be a "living document" there needs to be a commonality of objectives but if a developer pays market price for an annexed development there will be little room for altruism - profit will, of necessity, be the driving force.

Also, a buyer in course has every right to rely on the documents as written and recorded. He (she, it) cannot be expected to understand or interpret the intent of the parties. The documents will prevail. It is imperative that every precaution be taken with this transaction, every i dotted and t crossed - the effects will literally be felt forever.

I may have some facts wrong and, if so, I would certainly modify my position accordingly. But if the situation is as I perceive it, we must get it right and we must get it right on paper. You cannot realistically expect a second chance.

It seems to me that if these folks are a problem, no amount of hand holding or monitoring is going to keep them from doing what they are going to do. However, a few well placed phone calls and the review of back issues of newspapers from the sites of previous tournaments should establish whether they have a history of problems and at least give Council some cold comfort. Don't turn away if they have a history of having a good time and behaving like adults. Trust but verify.

When was "Somewhere along the line"? Does the district have an internal audit department or function? Is it audited annually by independent auditors? How do we know that the train wreck hasn't already happened? Are written procedures in place? If not, why not? If so, why aren't they followed? Who made the decision and why haven't they been held accountable? This is inexcusable for any public organization and the school board needs to have some serious deliberation and consider actions far beyond what is described in this article!